Identify the ethical issues in the above case, and comment on their significance.
A number of ethical issues in this case relate to corruption. The initial ethical issue in the case is the alleged bribery allegations leveled against the former minister, the broker and surveyor. The three are all accused of having received bribes from a potential buyer HB. The act of receiving bribe is this unethical. Apparently, the significance of the bribe in this case is that it forms the foundation onto which the entire case has been established.
Another ethical issue is conspiracy to sell off public property without following the due procedures. According to the Oxford Dictionary of English, conspiracy is defined as a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. In its own definition, therefore, a conspiracy is unethical. The significance of conspiracy in this case is that it also contributes to the charges against the three accused office bearers.
Another ethical issue is the attempt by HS to use false ministry of Land and Housing documents to extort money from HB for the fraudulent sale of state land, amounting to forgery. Forgery and use of fake documents for personal selfish gain are against the society ethics. HS thus did not only commit a criminal offense, but also unethical atrocity. Hence, the significance of forgery as is done with HS also adds up to the overall charges against him.
Discuss the former minister’s decision to ‘trade’ State-owned land for bribes
Various explanations can be given as motives that drove the minister into the conspiracy to sell of public property. The initial explanation is thus tendencies of public office bearers to abuse the powers vested in them. In fact, impunity is common retrogressive vice amongst most public holders; such officers often use their offices to shield themselves against the law. The minister could have possibly hoped that given his position as a cabinet minister, he could easily engage in such criminal activities and evade the law.
The minister in charge of Lands and Housing knows pretty well the value of land in various areas and locations as well as the various rules and regulations governing the sale of the same lands. The defense put up by the minister’s lawyer clearly indicates that the minister understood that were minimal chances of being incriminated. Having understood that the value of the said land was high, and the law could easily bend to favor him, he thus launched the conspiracy so as to scrupulously earn the huge profits from the sale of the land. After all, the overall cost of the land as well as the bribes by far surpassed the legal fees.
I strongly feel the stance by the DPP on this case was compromised at the last minute. For instance, I do not fully comprehend why the DPP was so insistent on the bank details of the minister only to drop all charges against the minister even without the said documents. In my view, the bank details of the minister are key in this case since they would help trace the movement of the bribe money that was allegedly paid to the minister. However, the fact that the DPP was denied the same document points towards intentional efforts to jeopardize the investigation into the case and attempts to forcefully terminate the case.
A possible explanation for this is that external forces might have played a part in this case. For instance, the argument by the Minister’s defense lawyer that ICAC had no mandate to investigate the minister are wanting. ICAC is an independent commission enshrined in the country’s constitution and thus has all it takes to investigate and determine all cases of corruption and related cases. The reasons given by the DPP for dropping the charges against the minister are also not clear. In my opinion, the case was prematurely terminated and no exhaustive investigations were done to get fine details about all that transpired in this case.
References
Kharel-Pandey, Sharaddha. Prevalent Corruption in Nepal and the Maoist Insurgency. , 2006. Print.
